I read the transcripts. I listened to what he said. I disagree with your assertion that his statements were racist or race-baiting. They were certainly anti-government - when the government has done *bad* things, I'm anti-government too. I notice you switched from "anti-american" to "anti-government". Those two things are not the same.

I disagree that Rev Wright being *angry* with America, and white Americans, for treating him and other black people is racism. It's anger. It's *justified* anger. Now, I agree with Mr. Obama that the way in which the anger was expressed by Rev. Wright was divisive and unhelpful - but losing your temper and saying hurtful things is not the same as racism.

Rev. Wright said some unhelpful destructive things recently. I do not agree with your assumption that these angry unhelpful things are a sign of racism or anti-americanism.

Mr. Obama has been attending that church for *20 years*. These statements were made very recently, while Obama was on the campaign trail, not even in the church. Do you have proof showing a pattern of such divisive rhetoric from Rev. Wright? Do you have any statements of his that are actually racist or anti-american? Cite them, please.

(For the record, I'm not black, not that it really matters for this discussion.)

It's a statement of faith *of the church* as a *body of believers*. It is not a gospel or life statement or a set of commandments that each of the members must subscribe to. It explains why they are together as a body of believers.

Try using 'French' and 'France'. Do you really fail to see how "black" people have been oppressed in this country? Do you really believe that all of the oppression is in the past - something in the dim memory of our culture, but of course never happens today? Do you really not understand why a community of black Christian believers, especially within the context of when the document you quote was written, might form to support one another, to share faith, and to foster a community identity? Do you really equate these oppressed people, banding together in a community with a 'black' version of white supremacists?

Obama is not a racist - check.
He associates himself with those who are racially controversial - check.

(Shouting now)
GOOD FOR HIM! RACIALLY CONTROVERSIAL?! THAT MEANS "ANGRY BLACK PEOPLE", DOESN'T IT? DAMN RIGHT THEY'RE ANGRY - THEY HAVE A DAMN GOOD REASON FOR BEING ANGRY. WE FUCKING ENSLAVED THEIR ANCESTORS, RAPED THE WOMEN, FLOGGED THE MEN, CALLED THEM "NIGGERS", LYNCHED THEM, TOLD THEIR CHILDREN THEY WEREN'T "GOOD ENOUGH" TO GO TO SCHOOL WITH WHITE CHILDREN, AND EVEN, TO THIS VERY DAY, SUBJECT THEM TO SUBTLE RACISM *EVERY* *SINGLE* *DAY*. AND, WHEN ONE OF THEM *DARES* TO GET ANGRY ABOUT IT, PEOPLE GO AROUND FAINTING AND CLUTCHING AT THEIR PEARLS AND CRYING "OH, NO, REVERSE-RACISM!".
(Ok, done shouting)

These are not things that happened 'a long time ago'. People alive today remember some of these events. They are our history. Obama today made a truly amazing speech about reconciling people in this country. If you, or anyone else, want to hear it:


ottopilot, I hope the above doesn't seem like a personal attack. I don't mean it personally. However, you express a viewpoint that I think is wrongheaded and dangerous, and furthermore make me angry. A black community coming together and forming a community, making a statement of faith that expresses their desire to strengthen that community (*especially* when this statement was written, which was a number of years ago), is not racism. An angry black man who has lived with racism his entire life, and sometimes expresses his anger, is not racist. An angry man who is fed up with the government 'of the people' doing reprehensible, ungodly, sinful things in our name is not anti-American. A man who loses his temper and says divisive hurtful things on occasion is not a crank, or a bad person. He is simply human.

And finally, Barack Obama accepting him as a flawed human being, who he loves even as he disagrees with, instead of disavowing that relationship, is a wonderful thing, and makes me proud to be an American, and an Obama supporter.

Odd i'm not voting for Obama because of guilt and i'm from the Midwest but currently living in the west. I don't know anyone voting for him out of guilt. No everyone I know really likes his honesty, integrity, and transparency.

Agreed. The only problem is that it would be considered racism if it were a white man angry at black Americans. There is a double standard in this country for this sort of thing (which Obama alluded too today and I dearly wish he had said it outright) and until it goes away we have a problem.

I said back on the first page that Obama's disavowal of Wright's words was not enough for me, that I would be more impressed with a disavowal of the man. I have changed my mind. I wanted the disavowal because I believed that nothing short of that would have satisfied the black community if this were a white candidate and white minister. I stand by that thought but disagree with the idea now.

Obama's comparison with that uncle which you disagree with on some issues hit a cord (this was not in his speech but over the weekend for those of you just catching up here). My grandparents were like that. I loved them dearly and no problem being associated with them in front of anyone. I was honored, in fact. I really disagreed with their politics though. Seriously so. So much that we stopped discussing politics all together.

The fact that we feel the need in this country to force a man to walk away from his friends over a single issue is not good. This is a country based on freedom. Freedom of word, freedom of thought and freedom to disagree. It has become the political expedient thing to do to leave those behind that might cause a candidate problems in an election over one issue. Frankly, I view Wright as a political liability to Obama but I have to respect the fact that he would not be cowed into walking away from a friend, at least not completely.

I can't say I am an Obama supporter and if the election were today I still doubt I would vote for him but he scored points today with me.

There are few things that make a white man feel more justified in his comments than the ability to call a black man "racist."

From:
http://firedoglake.com/2008/03/18/re...ay-crazy-shit/

Yup. That about sums it up.

Well, to be frank, I think, as a group, 'black americans' have far more justification being angry with 'white americans' than the other way around. In this country, we had, for a long time, various laws in place that were explicitly or implicitly designed to subjugate black people. Slavery, Jim Crow laws, etc. As a class, black people have a right to be angry with white people.

Now, as Obama said, there are reasons for resentment in the other direction. Just because "my ancestors" enslaved black people, why should my kids have to be bused 30 minutes away instead of go to the local school? Was the black guy who got the job I applied for, or got into that college, less qualified than me? Good for Obama for addressing these issues. They are difficult issues, and I don't have good answers for them.

WTF, billege?! Good to see you around!

All Things Considered had a good piece today, addressing the Rev. Wright issue with respect to Black Liberation Theology.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/s...12189&ft=1&f=2

:rolleyes:

You're so vain, I bet you think this post is about you, don't you, don't you.

You are the perfect political supporter though, you take anything potentially negative about the candidate personally. Its not even really negative about him, its explaining some of his appeal. Welcome to the cult of personality, enjoy the ride but watch out for the coolaid.

Yeah, I just read a commentary piece that said, basically, that this is a test of American maturity--that Obama just said to America, "Let's sit down and have a grown-up conversation about race."

My belief on a Rabbi is if I go to them and they tell me x, I have to accept what they say since I am going there for guidance. If I have strong objections to the person then I will not go there. Also almost all great Rabbis worth anything, have nothing to do with politics and if you ask them about any of these things (except for the topic of Israel) they will tell you the Jewish philosophy treat your neighbor how you would like to treat yourself. To me if the Rabbi I see came out and told me to do a, b or c, I would either follow him and if I disliked and felt some major issue I would never return, by going to him I accept his instruction. That is the Jewish system.

But you have to understand how great Rabbis work, recently there was an issue about a concert in the Jewish community, and a Rabbi 2 weeks before it said it should not happen. People were upset, there was lots of issues, and a lot of people said why wait so long etc... The Rabbi finally came out and said when it comes ot life and death you listen, but here when money is involved you all of a sudden question, and the reason for the delay was I was asked the question 2 weeks before it happened. That is the way it works, they may teach us daily give lectures on jewish concepts, but they do not give guidance unless asked.

Shout away, robot_parade... I'm listening, and I agree with you,.

I also listened to all 37 minutes of Obama's speech yesterday, and was blown away. It's been a long time since I even dared to feel proud to be an American, especially living abroad... but if that man becomes president, I might be able to find some pride again in my country.

"The problem" for Obama and for Clinton and McCain as well, is that already, and increasingly. the focus of the electorate is and will be about their own pocketbooks/wallets. <h3>The wars and "a grown-up conversation about race", are not where most people are focusing their attention.</h3>

The Fed rate cuts and inflation are killing the CD savings returns and spending power of the average elderly person, and a trip to "the pumps" has become a $45 outlay, vs. $13 in late 2001.

I don't think that the people Obama needs to connect with, are paying attention or are impressed. I don't think they give a shit about what his "hate minister" has been saying. The people paying attention to the subject of this thread are those already committed to Obama and those who would never consider voting for him.

By the first week of november, unemployment will be up more than 25 percent from the present level (5% now vs. about 6.5% seven months from now) and there will be "more shocks" to the economic system. A neighbor, friend or relative will have sold a house for a lower price than anyone could predict last year, or been foreclosed on, and everyone will know one or two people who have been "downsized" or laid off.

There will be three or four scary "down days" on wall street, and the debt ceiling will be "revised up' by congress to allow another trillion of borrowing to prop up the Fed's poor balance sheet (It has $374 billion remaining on it's books of a former $800 billion asset portfolio, after recent bailouts and "guarantees" like the $30 billion it extended to JPM for it's $2 per share "purchase" of imploded Bear Stearns, last weekend.) Supplemental appropriations to fund "war operations", and perhaps another Bush "stimulus package", as well as shortfalls in anticipated federal tax revenue from the "economic downturn" will easily eat up the rest of an additional "borrowed trillion".

Obama should focus on speaking to the undecided voters about the same things that any savvy democratic WASP male candidate would be "jaw boning" about in these circumstances....think Bill Clinton in 1992. I think it's a mistake to do anything but ignore the right's linking of Obama to Wright. I've been posting for 54 weeks on this forum that it is about "the economy, stupid", and it increasingly is. Looking, talking and acting like Bill Clinton did in the 1992 campaign is what all three candidates will be advised to do. The two democrats have a distinct advantage because they can blame the party in power for the tanking economy, as Clinton did in '92.

Obama is on record in a July, 2007 CFR "FOREIGN POLICY" magazine article, proposing an increase in the size of the military via the recruiting of an addtional 92,000 ground troops. He could attract more voters by declaring that military spending, increased from $295 billion in FY 1998, to more than $700 billion annually today, with the addition of war "supplement" spending, hasn't made us safer, but it has enriched Halliburton, Blackwater, and other "republican insider" defense contractors. Obama should promise people that, in an Obama presidency, the troops now in Iraq will soon be home with their families, and they and National Guard troops will be working to rebuild and replace worn out equipment, while they are guarding the "home front" to truly "keep us safe". He should promise to make reducing military spending, with a priority to re-equip our forces with conventional armored vehicles left behind in Iraq or now beyond repair.

Instead of advocating a costly increase in spending on nearly 100,000 new ground troops, he should commit to spending $100 billion less next year on the defense and homeland security departments, via ALL BID, instead of "no bid" contracts, purging of republican, defense and security industry "cronies" from government, and SHIFTING THE SAVINGS INTO HEALTH INSURANCE REFORM SPENDING, JOB RETRAINING, etc.....

For either Obama or Hillary to be calling attention to how they are different from 1992 WASP male candidate Bill Clinton (WASP male is perceived as "plain vanilla", like the guy reading the 6:30 network news on TV), thus making the campaign about the candidate, instead of about the issues, IS EXACTLY THE REPUBLICAN STRATEGY WITH THE "HATE MINISTER" PR "OP".

IT WORKED.....OBAMA WAS FLUSHED OUT BY IT...MADE THE MISTAKE OF DEVOTING A SPEECH IN RESPONSE TO IT, A SPEECH THAT THIS WEEK, SHOULD HAVE BEEN A FRANK TALK TO THE UNDECIDED ABOUT WHAT HIS PLANS ARE TO CUSHION THE IMPACT OF RECESSSION!

HOLY CRAP, friends. Check out this conversation between Mike Huckabee and Joe Scarborough this morning.

http://dailykos.com/storyonly/2008/3...494/229/479797

HOLY CRAP. Could it be that we're having a grown-up conversation about race for the first time in this country? This is AMAZING.

US of KKK A is very racist. There is no justification for the divisive, hatespeak of Rev. Wright.

Losing your temper and saying hurtful things is human. Passing those in the name of God and doing things like going to Libya in 1984 with Louis Farrakhan or naming him a "great humanitarian" is more than just losing your temper and saying hurtful things.

He's been saying it for quite sometime, not just recently.

Wrong, again 1984 going to Libya with Farrakhan was not "very" recently. His speech on 9/11 happened very shortly after 9/11.

"God damn America not God Bless America" is Anti-American and where does that exactly belong in a church?

Neither am I, and it shouldn't matter that I'm not but alas, it does to many if not all Obama supporters, because you can't call me racist if I'm a black man saying this.


So then we need to ask Obama which "truth" we should believe from him. Up until very recently he stated "I never heard any of these things sitting in his pews or in personal contact with him"

But Yesterday, he admits to hearing them and disagreeing vehemently with them. Yet, he named Rev. Wright to his campaign as an adviser.

Now, Obama wants to be this great Uniter, but he puts Rev. Wright on his advisory committee, then takes him off when the heat gets to hot.


Exactly when did I ever oppress a black man. When have you? I have never seen or been employed in a place that did not hire black people. I have never worked for anyone that did not have black people in upper management, in some form.

Oppression goes both ways in this country today, trust me. The oppression I see most common today isn't that between color but of financial class and that is regardless of race.

But that is not a church's mission. A church, especially on that supposedly teaches Christ's teachings should be working to support ALL men.

Yes, I do. Hatred is hatred, prejudice is prejudice and putting one group over another is by definition "supremacist".



What's this "we" bullshit? I cannot state with 100% certainty but I'm 99% sure that my ancestors never owned 1 black man or black woman as slaves. Raping a black woman? I seriously doubt. Flogged a black man? I doubt it. Called them "niggers", that may have been a strong possibility. But then again, my family were called "krauts", "Mics", "Degos" and so on. (I'm German/Welsh/Irish/Italian with some Dutch.)

My grandmother was alive when in 1917 during WWI, people blamed those in the community of German descent for the war. She watched her father get beaten to a bloody pulp because he was married to a German woman. She saw her uncles have their store windows broken, robbed and boycotted because they were German.

She doesn't hate America. She doesn't find churches that keep that prejudice alive.

My mother and father went to school with every race. My mother was teased as a kid because she was of a "weird religion" (7th Day Adventist) by all races. My mother was not allowed to play with many kids because of that reason.

Hate in many ways is still alive in this nation. Hate is a part of our past and our present. For a Presidential candidate to have a person of such hatred of this country, sit on his advisory committee, one has to ask who he will select for his cabinet.

We must ask, if Obama states he wants to be a uniter and loves this country enough to be president, why did he put such a hateful divisive person to be on his election committee? Why does he not confront what his minister and spiritual adviser and talk about how wrong it is? Instead, we get "he's like an old uncle", "do you agree with everything your pastor/rabbi etc states?"

How was it reconciling? It was a very good well rehearsed speech but I don't know let's see.

You disagree, condemn in unequivocal terms with many of Rev. Wright's political views....... but you named him to you political advisory committee.

Again, when I have gone to church I have sat, listened and if I didn't like what the message was, I got up and left and did not go back. I go to be uplifted and worship my God and be in the company of others whom share my views that religion was to be uniting, not divisive. There are enough ways to divide, I do not need my spiritual leaders to add fuel to the fire, but to try to put the fires out.

Knowing this, he still named him to his political advisory committee.

First, all these hateful things said are SOLD by the church. Yet, Obama states it's only seen on YouTube and the news.

Secondly, Oprah supposedly went to this church for 3 years and disliked the message and stopped going.

He's doing God's work? Is that the God he states should "damn America"?

Reaches out to those with HIV/AIDS? You mean the disease the Rev. states was created by our government to destroy the black race?

Does he help all needy people, all homeless people or does he just go to black communities?

That is a great, positive uplifting message for a church to have. But was this before or after Rev. Wright went to Libya to meet with Khadaffi with a most racist and divisive Louis Farrakhan?

I have known many racists and severely prejudiced people on all sides and they are almost like psychopaths. They can be the nicest people to those they hate for prejudicial reasons and then go on rampages and show hatred as soon as the person is gone.

I find it hard to believe in 20 years of listening to this hatred from the pulpit, that if you disagreed so much with it, that you, who wants to unite have not confronted this Rev. and talked to him personally, even if in private about his views and hatreds and tried to help him talk about the hatred he preaches and why he won't change his message to be more uplifting. Instead, you continued to go to his church and just as McCain is guilty by association for just trying to get support from racists, you should be guilty by association with your 20 year support of one.

No one has ever asked you to disown the black community. No one asks you to disown your grandmother, who obviously had some prejudice of her own. But you through her under the bus and said worse things about this woman, "who sacrificed again and again for me, a woman who loves me as much as she loves anything in this world" than you did about a man that says "God Damned America".

No one asked you to disown Rev. Wright. You have though: http://sweetness-light.com/archive/p...obamas-website
Funny how all of a sudden Rev. Wright's words have been taken off and you have added those from an Orthodox Jew.


Let's see Rev. Wright says, "God Damn America", meets with Farrakhan and Khaddaffi in Libya in 1984...... but Geraldine Ferraro is worse because she stated somewhere in a written essay that you are where you are only because you are black. Those are comparable statements and actions to you?

Your statement about Imus and how you were one the first to demand he be fired:

Yet, you are wanting us to forgive and understand a Reverend... who from the pulpit of your church, the man you call your "spiritual mentor", the man you had sit on your political advisory committee until the heat got to hot.... who says, "God Damn America"... who says, "the government created AIDS to kill the blacks".... who says, "America deserved 9/11"... who in 1984 went to Libya with Louis Farrakhan... who calls Louis Farrakhan a great American?

That's a bit hypocritical and divisive isn't it? It's ok for 1 man to speak hatred and be considered a great church leader but another, who is a shock radio host doing what he does, shocking America, should lose his job? It's one or the other.... you either support one's right to have their beliefs and to speak out publicly those beliefs or you don't. It's not ok for Rev. Wright to have his hatespeak if you are going to demand Imus lose his job for what you consider hatespeak.

This is not a Uniter, one who wants political changes in how things are done.... this is someone who sees things politically and jumps on bandwagons demanding people's jobs, while dismissing worse statements from someone that can help him politically .... well until those words become an issue then it "he's a goofy old uncle".... "he's misnderstood", you excuse his words and actions away with excuses but vehemently repudiate what he says.... and so on.

You had 20 years to help Rev. Wright understand his unjustifiable hatreds (but it seems some of your supporters wish to make us want to believe his statements are fair and supportable as seen here... but you state they aren't, I think you need to talk to some of your supporters who support those statements, even AFTER your speech and explain why they are wrong to support them).

Race isn't an issue, Colin Powell could have probably been elected to any office he sought.


It's not a black/white issue, it's a poor/rich issue. But let's get in that "white guilt" and make the whites feel guilty about what their ancestors did to ours.

Why not, give us what your solution is to all this instead of harping on it and using it as an excuse to excuse away Rev. Wright's hatespeak?

This is what you were allowing your children to learn when they heard their pastor say, "God Damn America".... "The government created AIDS to kill blacks".... etc. But they can't succumb to cynicism, even though the pastor teaches hatred and cynicism and paranoia against the nation.

But he is your religious mentor..... he sat on your campaign committee.... you stated last week you never heard any of it... then this week you say you heard it but vehemently disagreed with it. You are also quick to say "former pastor". If he "too often failed..." then why did you continue to sit through his sermons, why up until all this happened did you refer to him as your spiritual adviser, your religious mentor? Then when this becomes a HUGE issue... he's your former pastor who "too often failed to understand is that embarking on a program of self-help also requires a belief that society can change."


Yet, again, why did you not talk to Rev. Wright and explain that to him? And if he did not share those views, why did you continue to go to his sermons?

Or was it all for political gain and now you need to distance yourself because it is no longer politically helpful in getting elected?

How is that change from any other politician? How is that being a Uniter? That is the same politics as usual. Use what you can as long as you can, then discard what hurts you and distance yourself as much as possible.

I can go further, but why? To me, I have shown the questions I have and the responses will be hatred, attacks and more excuses.

Accepting one as flawed is one thing, calling him your "spiritual mentor", sitting through his hatespeak racist sermons (while you disagree vehemently), naming him to your political committee then dropping him as soon as he becomes a liability..... all seems very hypocritical, all seems very calculated to get elected.... but he is the agent of change and hope.... you have your opinions, I have mine. I just took a great deal of time explaining my views and opinions on all this and I stand by these beliefs, I make no excuses for them.

I am human though, I do get irrational, defensive and emotional. I do make mistakes getting my points across when I am attacked by being called (or implicated as) a racist for my views, for being talked down to and having my opinions and views dismissed as uneducated, so last week, divisive, and so on, while those attacking give no rational for their beliefs or it is lost in the process of the attacks, the put downs, the excuses. I do not believe I am alone in this. I tend to believe it is in fact human nature to have these feelings.

pan, I held back from posting during and after mixedmedia tried unsuccessfully but quite patiently to persuade (shame ?) you into STFU.

With all due respect, and I don't even know how much you are due, anymore, the "racism" is institutionalized, and was even more so. when Jeremiah Wright was "coming up":

Since you've appointed yourself, "judge", how does your process work? Is it permissible for a former slave to exhibit the angry speech that has come from Jeremiah Wright? Does the generation following "slave" status, have to be silent, in your estimation, or just "toned down" to a degree you find acceptable? What about the generation after that....is it just "yah sir", and "noooo sir", is that all you want to hear coming out of "their mouths", pan?

Again, who are you to judge? Recognizing that I am not in a position to judge, because I have not had the experience of the FBI, for example, regard my entire race as presumed "enemies of the state", is what is separating my POV
from yours right now, pan, and from the POV of actual racists.....

Do you get the "gist" pan? Please stop, please?

pan, you missed the point of the speech entirely because you are SO locked into your point of view. It's a shame, because it's the first time the racial divisions in our country have been honestly and universally addressed by ANYONE, EVER, and it's a GREAT BIG DEAL. But you're hung up about one guy in a robe and what another guy should or shouldn't have done about him. You listened to that whole speech through a certain filter, and nothing that's not consistent with the filter could make its way into your mind.

Tiny, tiny thinking, pan. Tiny, compared to what's now on the table.

You missed the part where Obama said that black anger--at systematic oppression, the socioeconomic leftovers of slaver, etc--is real. You missed where he acknowledged that there's anger among white Americans, about being blamed for things they never did, about losing job opportunities to affirmative action, being subjected to angry rhetoric like Wright's, etc. You missed the part where he said we could point fingers, put hate speech on high-repeat on the news, continue to blame OR we could come together and address these issues as a unified America.

Far as I'm concerned, when THAT'S what's now in the public discourse, the concerns you're cemented into are petty, small, and not worth dealing with. Not when what's now in front of us is a REAL opportunity to unite America. The first opportunity we've had EVER.

Pan:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

Have you ever had this sort of thing directed at you?

Reverend Wright was born in 1941. He is certainly aware of such things, if not directly effected by them. He would've been in his 20s or 30s - easily within his lifetime.

If you think institutional racism is gone, or you think that being frustrated to the point of "God Damn America" is hate speech, then perhaps you should evaluate how privileged you really are.

Racism isn't just about calling people names and segregating them. "The collective failure of an organization to provide an appropriate and professional service to people because of their colour, culture or ethnic origin." is a fine example. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Institutional_racism

If he had done this before the issue came up, if he had shown actions that he truly felt this way, I'd be far more open minded.

But, it was not until he could no longer say, "I was never there when Rev. Wright said those things." While he later stated, "I was there and was disgusted by it." Which was it Obama? Were you there or not?

It was not until this blew up and he could no longer control it that he separated himself from Rev. Wright. For Obama to say he is a Uniter but to have such a hateful minded man on his election committee and to state how such a man was his spiritual mentor, his religious leader, Obama's words ring hollow to me.

It was nothing more than an attempt to save his political dreams. That is it.

Of course he doesn't want fingers pointed NOW, but where was this great speech when Rev. Wright was his "spiritual mentor and leader".... Where were the actions of unity when he put such a hateful man on his election advisory committee?

Those questions need answered, for me at least.

Say what you want about me, but these are legitimate questions that need answered if we are to elect this man.

Wow. And my opinion of Mike Huckabee just shot up. Could this be...dare I say it...'Change'? (The word 'Change' is a registered trademark of The Obama Presidential Campaign, Inc., and is used here with permission ;-))

Look, realistically, those people inclined to cut Obama some slack will do so, and those who aren't won't. The question is whether the people in the mushy middle -- you know, the ones whose votes tend to decide elections -- will find Obama's speech persuasive, will tolerate Wright's positions because they recognize it's the product of pain, or won't find the connection of the two troubling. And the fact is, it's just too early to tell right now.

That being said, I have to say Obama is a fantastic speaker. It's really a pleasure to listen to him. And no one should underestimate how important speaking ability and communication is for a President -- especially given the current guy's ineptitude in that department.

You're buying the right-wing spin. What he SAID was "I wasn't there when those sermons that got onto YouTube were given". And that's true, he wasn't. He was out on the campaign trail on those particular days. He never said that he had never heard Wright say controversial things.

But of course you've been against Obama from the beginning.

Cynical much?

At the very least, can you admit that his speech gives us a unique opportunity to address racial issues? Can you get beyond your bias against the man long enough to see the good this speech might have done for the country? Because we're suddenly having a very unique conversation in this country--and by clinging to your Obama-fixated cynicism, you're making SURE that you're not part of it.

Oh My God Please let's not go back there. Please don't be so vain as to think that this thread is about you. Nothing I've said--including things responding to you--is about you.

Edit: Um... Except, of course, for the one post above that WAS about you, which I agree with roachboy was, at the very least, off-topic.

I agree with the earlier comment that you are viewing Obama's speech on this issue within a certain judgmental lens. A lens that bars you from being able to understand why someone wouldn't want to publicly and personally shame someone you love who may have said hurtful things. We all have family members or friends like this, and we love them anyway, despite what they say. I don't believe that 9/11 was an inside job, but my aunt does. I don't love her any less, and it doesn't make me believe it, no matter how many times she says it to me.

And I'll say this... The reason Obama didn't bring this up until now is because it's a non-issue with respect to Obama the candidate. Obama doesn't believe those things, but he still holds the Rev. in high regard for his decades of positive work. These things are what real friendship are about, accepting the good parts of a relationship with the bad.

I would hate to be one of your friends if you treat them the way you want Obama to treat a longtime friend.

I agree with RB: Your cynicism is astounding and unwielding. Not open minded = closed minded, ya?

So if this issue had not been brought to light, you'd be more open minded about Obama? Your posts pre-Reverend didn't sound any different than those since the video was released.

So it is ok to fight hate, prejudiced and anger with hate, prejudiced and anger?

What does whether or not I am privileged have to do with a Rev. preaching in his church "God Damn America."

Regardless of what some may think here I am in no way shape or form racist. My best friends in the Navy were black men that I shared my hopes, pain and dreams with. I shared more with them because they were like brothers than I have with many of my white friends.

I work with black and white addicts and I treat them equally and give the same hope and faith equally.

I have never seen a man or woman or religious person not hired nor seen them fired simply because of race or sex or religion. I have attended many management meetings in different companies and have never been told as a manager to hire or fire anyone based on race/ethnicity/sex/religion. I was always told to hire the person best suited for the job. As a manager and when I owned my own business, I worked to hire the best people I could because the better the people I surrounded myself with, the better I looked.

I got that philosophy from my father, who hired and promoted many people of differing areas. I never once heard my father say he didn't hire a man because he was black, even though he was most qualified. My father went out and recruited those who would help him move forward and make him look his best. We had black men, women, people of all religions at our family dinner table as dad interviewed them. Our families at times would become close. I called the kids of many of those he hired from differing backgrounds, friends.

I am not saying racism doesn't exist, but I have seen it on both sides, but never once in any company I have been employed by.

Don't lecture me about racism. Racism only exists when we allow it. Obama allowed his Rev. continue and exploit racism and did nothing until he, himself realized he would not get elected if he didn't do something.

His actions and what he has done about it for the last 20 years by following a man exploiting and continuing racism from a pulpit speaks more of his character than a well written and rehearsed speech.

To excuse this Rev.'s hatred and prejudicial sermons and his trip to Libya and his praising of Farrakhan, as that of someone he saw segregation and lived through all those racist times is a bullshit self serving excuse.

Thurgood Marshall saw it, Rev. Martin Luther King lived through it, Colin Powell, Clarence Thomas and many many others we will never know and they were uniters. Not 1 of them ever used hatred and prejudice to further their own causes. Not one of them went to terroristic states with men of hate to meet with the leader of that country. If anything, most were pronounced "not black enough", they were met with hostility as "sell outs".

So don't talk to me about racism. Don't tell me how it is "ok, because he lived through it and you didn't."

I believe Obama's gist was hatred and prejudice isn't the answer to racism and prejudice. Yet, he chose for 20 years to go to a church where the Rev. taught that, lived by that (as demonstrated with his 1984 trip to Libya with Louis Farrakhan), he chose to name this Rev to his election advisory committee, to be married by him, to have him baptize his kids.

Then 1 week he says "I was never there and never saw this man speak those hateful things" and a week later when he needs damage control he say, "Ok, I was there but I vehemently disagreed with it." Nowhere does he ever say he discussed it with Rev. Wright and try to change his mind. But he and his supporters are quick to make excuses for it.

To say America deserved 9/11, is forgivable? And to put a man that says, that on your election committee and call him your spiritual and religious mentor, is commendable and should not be questioned?

To put a man, who calls one of the biggest public racists (Farrakhan) in the USA a "great man" and gives him awards and traveled to a terroristic state (Libya) that called for the destruction of the USA and meet with the leader of that country with Farrakhan on you election committee and call him your "spiritual and religous mentor" is acceptable and should not be questioned.

To say you vehemently disagree with the man, but to put him on your election advisory committee is commendable and acceptable and should not be questioned?

I'm sorry. I need to question those actions and to expect answers from the man who wants to be my president. I think it says a lot about his character and own private political beliefs and I as a voter am entitled to ask and want answers to these questions.

You make no argument that Obama is using hate, prejudice and anger in his campaign. Just that someone he happens to love does these things. That doesn't mean Obama supports his ideas. You've disregarded decades of the man's actions and are focusing on two or three questionable decisions, not all of which Obama was probably even aware of.

How can you go your entire life WITHOUT admiring someone who ends up being a tad skewed behind the curtains. Surely you don't repudiate and shun everyone who doesn't meet your base evaluation of them?

Really, what were my posts on Obama pre-controversy? What were my comments on any of the candidates?

And yes, if Obama had come out with this speech before any of this, instead of lying and saying "I never saw or heard him say those things."

But he didn't, and to me that speaks volumes on his character and persona.

I have the right to question. I have the right to my beliefs.

It's one thing, Ace, to out your friends and go after them. It's another to claim to be a uniter and have such a divisive man sit on your election committee and call him your spiritual and religious mentor.

Again, you don't answer the questions, I pose, with your opinions of why I should listen and believe in this speech. You attack and talk about being closed minded, How I was anti-Obama before all this (I didn't follow Obama before any of this because I had my candidate already (Edwards)), I'd like to see these anti-Obama posts I had out before. You talk about how I need to look at how "privileged I was".

Even when I share my past and what I have seen and my interactions with people of differing backgrounds, I'm still small minded and just not giving Obama a chance.

This man is running for president of my country, I have every right to hold him to different standards than I would hold someone who lives next door to me. I have every right to question his actions, I believe it is necessary to, considering the job he wants.

But no, I'm supposed to listen to a campaign saving speech and hear things that make me question even more, ignore all that and believe what he says this time and not question him anymore? Bullshit.

Last week it was "I never heard or saw those things." This week it's "I was appalled, disgusted and vehemently disagreed but I kept going and put him on my election advisory committee and called him my spiritual and religious mentor.... even though I disagreed with his hatespeak and the hateful messages he had in his sermons."

Well which is it? You weren't there or you were. And what of next week if it comes out you actually sat front row during some of those sermons and film exists of you raising your hands and nodding and yelling praise as he delivers one of these sermons? What will you say then?

I think we should be allowed to ask these questions and we should have answers to them. It is our duty in protecting the nation to know what our leaders believe.

Right now, I have to many questions, no true answers and all I see are attacks on how I am closed minded, how I already made my decisions and so on.... but I have yet to hear answers to the questions.

Too many questions..... nothing but implied racism for asking the questions before, then a lie last week and a save my campaign speech this week. Doesn't work for me.

Again, about me and telling me what I've disregarded and how I judge people.... but not a word on why I should vote or believe Obama.

Admiring is one thing, calling someone my spiritual and religious mentor, I'm going to know everything about the man because my spirituality and beliefs are very important to me and I'm not going to just follow some schmoe, I have no intention of wanting to be like spiritually. But maybe Obama isn't all that spiritual, maybe this was just his way of garnering the black vote because having seen others black men called not black enough, he knew he needed to make sure that he couldn't be labeled that. But we don't know do we.

Admiring and being friends with someone is one thing.... but naming him to my election committee is something else. If I'm running for president, I'm making sure the people on my advisory committee are people who best exemplify my beliefs.

First let me say that you really have a lot of free time for typing, or you just type really fast... Or practice in front of the mirror while you shave, who knows.

Why put him on the advisory committee? Perhaps because he wanted spiritual advice from his pastor? Someone he knew personally who would give him what he needed from the religious portion of his life. Why would he go to someone he didn't know?

Also, the underlined section from your quote is quite inflammatory and baseless. It is quite the red herring, but we're not fooled. Too bad most of us don't get to vote and most Americans are gullible reactionaries. See? I can be inflammatory too!

But... you're not running for president... so you don't have thousands of people dedicated to going over your life with a fine tooth comb to find out what nutjob is in your past that may have done or said something questionable.

pan, I've responded to points you're still hammering on. You've either got me ignore-listed, or you missed my post.

Pan, I suspect you missed my post #220. In it, I addressed some of the things you're still hammering on as if they've never been addressed.

I agree with the tone many others here have set. If you were inclined to like Obama prior to his speech his speech probably solidified that preference. If you were inclined to dislike Obama his speech did little to change your opinion of him.

If you're looking for a reason to dislike him Mr. Wright's a fairly large target. Personally I admire the fact Obama didn't throw him under the bus.

But I was for Obama before this became the lead story following every commercial break on every 24 hr. news channel.

Rat, I did miss it I appologize. Here's my response to it.

Really? Let's see dates. From what I understand the sermon stating the US deserved 9/11 happened shortly after 9/11/01.

I'd be interested to see the dates of the sermons and where Obama was supposed to be.

If all these were sermons given while Obama was on the campaign trail, then one has to wonder was Wright trying to destroy Obama? I mean he had to have known these sermons would come back at Obama.

But even Obama admitted yesterday he was there when some of the hate sermons were delivered.

But if not the sermons that are on YouTube..... there are more? What was said then?



I have? I singled Obama out back 1 month ago? 2 Months ago? I stated a severe dislike and how I was against him?

Please show me the posts.

In this case yes, too many discrepancies, too many excuses, not to be.

It was a good speech, was it "I Have a Dream"? No. It was what it was.. a political move solely made for damage control. How am I clinging to my Obama-fixated cyincism? I'm just asking questions and stating my opinions and feelings....that is it. Everyone is entitled to do that, last time I checked.

I don't accuse you of not answering or talking to me like I am closed minded simply because you are fixated on Obama winning and you don't care about or make excuses for the questions others may have or attack those asking them telling them they already have closed minds and so on. You have no idea how open minded or closed minded I was when I heard the speech. Why assume such?

Because, when I have given my opinion and asked questions I have had... the responses are quite similar every time... racism is insinuated, me having a closed mind is stated, people discuss how I have been against Obama from day one and so on. In other words the following posts do not answer the questions but attack me for asking them, in one way or another... subtly or outright.

The whole quote that you failed to post was this

I acknowledged the personal attacks I would face (close minded, how I have always been against Obama... and so on) and stated that I believed the questions were legitimate and should be answered.

I don't want this about me. I want someone to answer the questions without talking down to me, dismissing them, telling me I already had my mind made up, and so on. I don't think that is unfair to ask. I think it is very fair for me to ask and expect answers to from those who support him and are trying to win my vote or persuade me to open myself up to his message.

Again, I do not want this about me. I do not single anyone out, I simply respond to the posts that respond to me. The vast majority if not all tend to attack subtly or outright but refuse to answer the questions I ask.

First of all, is this not a personal attack that has nothing to do with the topic??????? But when I say
I'm accused of trying to make this all about me. But then when I say I'm attacked personally, everyone asks astonished and like they don't see it "really where? You aren't being attacked."

But this and your final statement seem to contradict each other and not just by a little.

It's a question I have. To me I wonder after this past week or so. Call it what you will and come up with some cutesy attack...but to me IMHO it's an extremely legitimate question I have.

Instead of answering it, you attack it. Then tell me how closed minded I am and how I am jumping at conclusions. I didn't jump to any conclusion, I simply posed a question that I have.


Exactly, and someone that is should know that if you put someone like Rev. Wright on your election advisory committee, you will be checked. Especially when this isn't just someone of the street supporting you, but the man you call your spiritual/religious mentor.

So are you implying that Rev. Wright is some nutjob that did and/or said something questionable? If so, then why is this man, Obama, calling him his spiritual/religious mentor and how he has been a follower for 20 years?

So what exactly is Rev. Wright to Obama?

OR A

hat I can agree with.

It was a catch 22, if he did he may have won some votes, if he didn't he may have lost some votes for the exact same reason... a question of character. It was a no win situation.

But he was quick to throw his white grandma under that bus.

That's more than fair and I respect that.

Most of your posts in these threads which were made prior to 3/18 indicate your thoughts about Obama.

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=132390

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=132420

http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?t=132019

My point, though, is that up until now, I'd seen you as very open minded and nonjudgmental. In the past few weeks, something's changed, or this is a side of you I hadn't seen. If you run through all your posts regarding Obama and racism in the past month or so, you'll see they're repetitive in nature. I've watched as a dozen or so well-spoken TFP members have tried to gently get you to see, but you're reading something into their posts that isn't even there.

There's no need for line by line analysis of everyone's post here. It comes down to respecting others' opinions. It may not be so from your perspective, but it feels (to me) as though you're paying lip service to everyone's answers to your questions and ignoring what was said, and responding again and again the same way.

You've been crying that your questions haven't been answered. But if your mind was truly open you'd see that your questions have all been answered in many different ways by some of the brilliant minds we have among us. No one cares if you disagree, or if you don't like Obama. We can and will respect any opinion.

Personally, I'm a Politics lurker because I learn so much from "listening" to you guys spar on the issues. It's much more fun and interesting for me to learn this way. I've always enjoyed reading you, respect you, and often agree with your positions. This time you remind me of a pit bull latching onto the food dish that's been set before him. It's all been given to you (the answers you claim you want) but you're still not letting go. I can't help but wonder what you're really looking for. :confused:

Ok so a week or so before it really took off, I was talking about it. But to hear people talk I have always been against Obama.

My point is other than this issue and the fact I believe I stated I felt he came out of nowhere to run for president... where else do I even mention his name let alone show I would in no way support him?


I have just gone through not only his speech, but replies, line by line showing, explaining my opinion, how I have formed it and the questions I have had.

I have even shown attacks on me, in the process of these "polite responses" to me that were trying to show me something but not answer any of my questions.



I am very happy that you have found a voice and posted. We need new ideas, opinions and views here.

I appreciate your kind words, they truly mean a lot to me. I have always been extremely honest and passionate in my posts. I may not always be right but I have always explained my views the best way I know how.... this issue is no different. We will not always agree on issues but differing in views when the differences have been spelled out, should not affect one's respect (unless I went truly racist or said something extremely hateful and derogatory, which I do not see in any of my posts...others seem to though).

Perhaps, but again, since I went through the speech and posted line by line my questions, opinions and views... I have responded to their answers, most of which were inflammatory and telling me how closed minded I am.... but very few if any answers to the questions I posed.

All I want is to have the answers to the questions I pose.

This is for the presidency of the USA..... I am wanting to know who we are getting into office and I want to know as much about that person's character as I can.

Perhaps, I am missing something and I have asked questions. This is an extremely important and vital issue to me and I am trying hard to find answers so that even if I don't support the man vote wise, I can find something to support in the man. I'm having a hard time doing that and his race is not the issue.... I have discussed many times over the issues and questions I have.

How did he throw his grandmother under a bus? Didn't he say he couldn't disown her either even though she also said things he didn't agree with?

Growing up I heard my father and uncle discussing Jews, blacks and many people in terms I do not agree with today. If I acknowledge the fact the statements were made and that I do not agree with them- am I throwing either of them under a bus?

Sometimes a spade is a spade. I don't feel the need to address and tease out the asinine nature of every red herring presented to me by someone I'm talking to.

Your question is a rhetorical one designed specifically to call into question Obama's moral character, something you have been unable to do outside of stating that because he's friends with a nutjob he is himself a nutjob. Be honest, you weren't looking for an answer to that question. You were trying to state that Obama isn't spiritual and his inclusion of this advisor is more empty posturing to appease the black vote. This cannot be proven or disproven. It is an empty, circular red herring designed to self-confirm your already conclusive belief (or lack thereof) in Obama.

Did he mention how she said racist things and went into detail with her, yet with Rev. Wright did he go into the same amount of detail?

I addressed it above.

How dare you tell me why I asked a question. You are jumping to conclusions on it. To me, my asking if he was using the church to further his image and help him politically is a valid question, especially now. It is not meant to damage his character it is a legitimate question I have.

It's the same as asking why does McCain crossover the aisle so much, does he do it out of belief or to further his political career? Why does Hilary use Clinton more and the Rodham is almost rarely heard? Each candidate has questions on their character and it is our duty as voters to find the answers, at least to me it is.

It may not meet your standards and you may not wish to answer it or seek the answer yourself, but don't you dare tell me why I asked it.

BTW I accept your apology for the personal attack.

Wow. I just can't believe were listening to the same speech Pan.

I've listened to it twice and read it through a third time and I have to agree with Ratbastid on this... it could be the first time I've every heard a politician speak so honestly and straightforwardly about race in the US.

As an interested foreigner, I can only say that with someone who can speak (and write) like that at the head of the US... I would feel a lot better (and that is without even addressing his policies, which I also think are solid).

The answer is "no". There. Does that settle it for you?

It doesn't? Hunh! Could that be because you're not interested in the answer? Could it be that you're mainly interested in the personal smear that the question is?

Wow. So I want to make sure I understand everything I've read the previous 6 pages.
1] Obama isn't racist even though he hung out with one or more on several occasions, including going to church and sitting under the teachings of one for ohhh the last 20 years or so.
2] His pastor of 20 years is an admitted racist and pretty damn anti-American but thats ok because
3] His ancestors might have been slaves and might have been abused and
4] It's ok for Blacks to be racist because they have a reason
5] and anyone that thinks otherwise or disgrees with them {meaning Obama supporters} about Obama is definitely a racist pig that should be hung and/or shot on sight.
6] It's ok to be a racist as long as you might have a reason such as being black or orange, green or yellow.

So, am I pretty clear on the last 6 pages or was there something hidden in there I missed?

thanks in advance !

pan, please see:
http://www.cnn.com/2008/POLITICS/03/...ref=rss_latest

Particularly:
Also, everything I'm finding is very clear that Wright never was a formal part of the Obama campaign and never gave political advice. Can you show me something to the contrary?

Scout... I don't see anything that suggests Rev. Wright is a racist. Some would like to paint his rhetoric as racist but I don't see it. Were his words inflamatory? Yes. Were they divisive? Yes. Were they helpful? No.

The only question I have is does Obama, in his words and actions appear to believe the same things that have been spouted by Rev. Wright. From what I have heard Obama say and from what I can see of his voting records, etc. I'd have to say that he does not have the same point of view.

As for the rest of your post. It too is inflammatory and helpful. I am sorry you feel that this is the way to convince people of your point of view.

No, it isn't. It's a statement of anger at racism in the US. I really fail to understand how, in your mind, anger at racism is the same as racism itself. Now, stuff like that *is* divisive, and inappropriate. But I don't understand how it could be considered racist.

My mistake. There are several quotes under consideration here, some of them recent, some of them not so recent.

Honestly, I don't care about Farrakhan, at all. AFAICT, he's a bit of a crank. I'm having enough trouble keeping track of you damning Obama for his close contact with Wright. I don't have time for two degrees of separation here.

Listen to the context. Really. It's exactly the same formulation as right-wing ministers use when they say God damns America because we don't round up all the gays and force them to be straight, or whatever they want to do. I don't agree with it from a theological perspective, and it isn't exactly helpful, but there it is. He's saying that, because of America's actions, God will 'damn' it. Actions like wars in the middle east, supporting dictators, etc. If God goes around damning entire countries, I think he's far more likely to do so for starting unnecessary wars that for toleration gay people.

No, he didn't. He heard about them when the media generated this controversy.

Racism is *not* dead. Amazing amounts of progress have been made, but racism is not dead. The wounds of past racism have not been healed. There's natural resentment as we work to heal those wounds. Obama spoke very eloquently about this very subject the other day.

I have to say, I think you are completely ignoring the context in which this church was formed.

Then I think we have an irreconcilable difference of opinion. A congregation of people gathered together for protection against racism and hatred in the wider society is not hatred, and it is not supremacist.

"We" as in Americans. Oppression of black people is part of our heritage as Americans. It was codified in our laws, and part of our culture. Should we feel guilty about it? Of course not, we didn't do it. However, it is part of our culture, and our heritage, and we should understand the anger of people who have been oppressed all their lives, and work to correct the injustices.

For the record, my family on my father's side did own slaves. My parents still have some historical papers documenting the slaves our family owned. I don't feel guilty about it, but I do accept it as part of my heritage.

I don't agree with your assumption that Rev. Wright hates America, or that his church is based upon prejudice and hatred. A church founded around black cultural heritage is not prejudice. Anger does not equal hate.

Was your grandmother angry at those who beat her father? Was she ever angry at a country that was prejudiced against her family because of their heritage? Did she ever get together with relatives or people of German descent to discuss their shared experiences, and to encourage one another?

Again, more prejudice. Is being angry at those who were prejudiced and did hurtful things prejudiced? Is banding together for mutual support and comfort anti-american?

I have heard nothing hateful from Rev. Wright. Angry, divisive, unhelpful...yes. Is that the norm for him, in his 20 years of preaching? Did he get up every week and say these things? I'm guessing that...certain people...have combed through everything Rev. Wright is documented to have said, looking for things that could be taken as controversial. We have a few clips of him saying controversial things.

It talked about race in an adult way, for one of the first times I've ever seen in political dialogue. It talked about the challenges from multiple perspectives.

And he said that the views were not everything there was to know about the man. He has been preaching in this church for 20 years, and you and I have heard 5 minutes of what he's said. Neither of us can say we know everything there is to know about the man. I'm willing to take Obama at his word that these statements were not the norm.

Obama says he was not present during the sermons in question. Is there proof that he was?

None of the people on his political advisory committee are likely to be perfect (I hear Jesus turned him down...)

Again, we simply disagree that this church was founded on hatred.

Oh, I so don't care about what Oprah thinks. It's like a not-care sundae, with a really big not-caring-at-all cherry on top.

He said he believes that God *does* damn America when it does evil things.

It's shocking how widespread this belief is within the black community. It's wrong, and it propagates a culture of victimhood.

This is the second time you've mentioned Farrakhan. I'm just going to ignore it.

Again, Obama claims that the statements Rev. Wright is being condemned for are not the sort of things he heard from the pulpit for 20 years. I'm not going to enter into a discussion about McCain in this thread.


My only response to this is that you were clearly listening to his speech through a very strange filter.

He changed his website. Oh, darn. How about you listen to what he says instead of divining his intentions from changes to his website. He denounced the things Rev. Wright said, and re-iterated his respect for the man, despite is flaws.

But...but...that's not what he said...at all. You quoted him and everything, and I don't see how you can interpret what he said in that way. He didn't say Ferraro's statements were worse. His point was we shouldn't judge people from sound bytes taken out of context.

Sorry, but I snipped a bunch of stuff that I can't respond to other than repeat what I've already said.

I think I've made my case as best I can. If you've interpreted anything I've said as a personal attack, please believe it was not intended as such.

I've said everything I can to respond to your points - I'll read your reply, if any, but unless I have something new to say, forgive me if I don't respond.

I was only asking if I understand everything correctly that has transpired or been written over the previous 6 pages.

And to say his pastor of 20 years isn't or doesn't espouse a racist point of view is rather disingenuous wouldn't you agree?

Supposing David Duke was a minister and McCain happened to sit under his tutelage and spiritual guidance for 20 years or so years then decided to run for president. Would we even be having this conversation? I think we both know the answer to that don't we?


On another note .... Comparing someone's pastor views to a family members view is a stretch at best. We can and do choose our spiritual or celestial guide but we can't choose our family members.

No. You clearly didn't.

Er...No?

So...You're saying that Rev. Wright's views are equivalent to David Duke's. I have to say, I find that assertion offensive in the extreme.

A valid point. However, Obama accepts both of these people, despite their flaws, and doesn't reject them.

To answer your question... Based on your previous list I don't think you understood it at all.

I can see that you have already made up your mind that Rev. Wright is a racist and that by extension Obama should be painted with the same brush.

I am not going to waste the keystrokes necessary to argue to the contrary as I honestly feel it would be a waste of my time.

All I can say is that I am sorry you feel this way.

Wright referring to white people as "the enemy", 2:30 mark.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sfu2P6cGhWo&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/Sfu2P6cGhWo&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

It is what it is.

would you say it's "boring".....

and whats up with the whole "you're not convincing anyone so shut-up" argument that keeps getting thrown around.

Not at the TFP it isn't. In the poll numbers, yes... but not here.

Actually, powerclown, what he said was:

I can see why you might assume he is talk about about all white people here but what I hear is an angry man talking about his enemies. Enemies that happen to be white. This does not equal *all* whites. It should also be noted that he is talking about black people who bring down their own by suggesting that some blacks are not black enough (the suggestion being they are enemies too).

I don't see this man as a racist. I see him as divisive and inflammatory. Things that are largely unhelpful in my eyes. But racist? No.


And Matthew... please don't take my words out of context. That sentence follows on the point that Scout appears to have already made up his mind so any further dialog is just pissing the wind.

I know what you meant. dc_dux, see above......me too

Yes, I am interested in the answer, but you'd rather attack then to have a true conversation over all this.

Your last paragraph is one large attack towards me.

But I'm not being attacked for my opinions and the questions I have am I... just my imagination that last paragraph telling me what I'm interested in, that I couldn't possibly truly be interested in knowing the truth to the question I have?

Welcome to the liberal group think hate machine.

You won't find answers here in the quarantine zone, and you dared question the new messiah. I know you are nothing close to a conservative pan, but just think of this as a learning experience and move on.

I guess it's open to individual interpretation as was mentioned earlier.

But I can't help think about a scenario where Obama is sitting in the front row of that church, with his wife and children, listening to that man preach, and what must be going though his mind. That calm, rational, measured, perfect public image - up against what he must be thinking and feeling inside as a human being. He sure doesn't seem like Pastor Wright in any outward way at all. And for the life of me I can't picture Obama whooping and hollering along with the rest of the congregation. It's all a bit surreal.

Ok, first, I want to thank you for honest sincere answers Robot. There were no attacks, you answered with your opinion of what I have said with what I believe to be honesty and respect.

I am just going to give a short answer, most of what I needed to say I said.

To me the Farrakhan issue is big. It should be one thing that shows where the church is, where Rev. Wright stands and where one can believe reasonably, Obama stands. To me it is huge that the man Obama calls his spiritual/religious mentor chose to go to Libya with Farrakhan in 1984 and that Obama still sought him out and followed his teachings. You can call it guilt by association or my trying to attack Obama's character or meaningless.... but to me this is one point that truly bothers me. Right or wrongly, I reiterate and repeat..... this is one huge ass issue with me.

I would feel the same if a white cadidate, named Pat Robertson his spiritual/religious mentor, and Pat had gone to Iraq in the 90's with David Duke.

Now to his credit Obama has denounced his church's and spiritual/religious mentor's naming of Farrakhan as a great humanitarian. Maybe I think of a spritual/religious mentor differently, but I could not nor would not call any man my spiritual/religious leader if he associated closely with David Duke or even Pat Robertson/Jerry Falwell for that matter. It goes against everything I spiritually believe in. So forgive me if I have issues, reconciling to the fact that a man who wants to be president can still call a man that he states he has strong philosophical differences with.

Now, Obama states in his speech he was in the church when hateful things were said. Again, I when I have gone to church I look to find one that I can be proud of and agree with. If I heard a church leader spout hated and prejudice and "God Damn America", I guarantee I would not go back. Nor do I go to church for politics, the 2 do not belong together.

Just as you can look throughout my entire posting history, you will never once see me defend or justify or excuse anything Robertson/Falwell/etc have ever said. They are hateful and in no way represent the Jesus Christ I believe in. I feel the same way about Sharpton and now Rev. Wright. Nor is Farrakhan a true example of the Muslim/Islam religion.

Rev. Jesse Jackson, while at times controversial does preach love and I have never heard such hatred come out of him. I don't agree with all he says but that's because he at times gets lost in the past. Most of the time though, he gives very positive speeches concerning the future of race relations, much like MLK Jr. did.

You say I ignore the context for which this church was formed. But it seems to me so has Rev. Wright. It seems to me that his hatred and prejudice has led him away from Jesus' teachings (much like Pat Robertson's and Jerry Falwell's have). For me, to have a candidate say that a Rev. who is so far away from what I see Christ teaching (love, forgiveness, working together to build a better future, etc) that to call him your spiritual/religious mentor you know Christ only as the Rev. sees him. Which would be hateful, spiteful and damning and used to further one's own political/social agenda.

I respect and thank you for not talking about McCain, it seemed there for awhile all some people could comeback with was "well what about McCain going to Hagee...." It's a point that has no true relevance, I put it in to kind of sop that nonsense, I appreciate you not giving it.

Overall, again, you defended your candidate very well and showed respect in doing so. That is all one can ask. I have brought out my concerns and tried to do so as respectfully as I know how.... I'm passionate about this because this man can be our next leader and I have questions, character means something to me. Sometimes my passion gets the best of me, but I'm not the only one in that category.

I think we can agree to disagree over some things. You see Obama one way, I see him another. But your response did give and wll give me things to think about. I may ask more questions, I may ask the same questions, again, to me this is a very important issue.... not necessarily because I plan to ever support him as a candidate, but will I be able to give him a chance to earn my respect as president?

I don't know..... I have too many questions, and yet when I ask them for the most part they go unanswered and respect goes out the window.

I cannot tell you how much it means that you took time to answer respectfully and to the best of your ability to show why you support the man and why you believe this is all a non issue to you.

Agreed on both points.



I do see that a large part of this whole affair is simply partisanship. Republicans and their ilk capitalizing on an issue that is (to my eyes) relatively minor but if talked up enough can do some serious damage. The same tactics are used again and again by both sides. This isn't new. Rove was a master at this sort of thing (even McCain felt the sting of it in the past).

However, I am wondering if some of the issues that we are all having with this discussion doesn't stem from our personal views on religion. Most of the people who appear to be shrugging off the connection between Wright and Obama are not religious. I for one find the whole need of a spiritual adviser and the need to wear your religious belief on your sleeve extremely weird. But then I am a Canadian and religion has largely been absent from our political discourse (until recently and even then, it's a side issue). In fact, I would say that I feel about religion in politics the same way that others here have suggested that politics doesn't belong in the mouths of their rabbis and ministers.

To the point, I don't place as much weight on a "spiritual adviser" as others do and wonder if that is the difference.

Of course it isn't that simple, there are many other factors at play, including the point about partisanship above and the massive elephant in the America's room, race.

I still feel that this whole affair is going to give Clinton the edge in the primaries. It has introduced much doubt into the voter's minds. I only hope his excellent speech on race and the issue of his "spiritual adviser" was enough to counter that doubt.

White people aren't the enemy? :confused:

I'm satisfied with Obama's explaination (the same way that a person who is dying of thirst is satisfied with a glass of ice water). I've also given up on network news for good, because of everyone's response to the speech.

Do I agree with the Reverend's sermon? Not really. He's playing to extremes in order to get attention. As someone who is also very preachy myself, it's embarrassing to see this tactic. I find it's best to be straight with people, whether the truth is a blaring trumpet or a muted french horn. Wright was playing the french horn part on a trumpet, and unfortunately he's given the media enough ammunition to ramble on 24/7 for about a month before people star killing themselves because they're so sick of hearing about it.

Much more respectful than your last response to me and I deeply appreciate this post. Whether you believe me or not.

I was unaware of this:

This is something for me to think about and digest. It still raises questions, but it also shows something I did not know.

Again, I appreciate this type of response.... no attack, no dismissal of my questions, just a simple post showing a possible answer. Thank you.

I find it quite surreal that someone like Mike Huckabee can not only understand what's going on here, but is willing to speak out about it, yet there seem to be a number of people who have far less connection to the subject that are so outraged.

And if you haven't listened to the short NPR report on Black Liberation Theology that I posted above, you need to listen to it now. It is impossible to have an even remotely accurate understanding of Rev. Wright without having at least a basic understanding of Black Liberation Theology.

I think this is a very interesting point that got sort of pushed aside by the other goings on in this thread. I was gobsmacked at Huckabee's words.

Obama gave a decent enough speech on race the other day, but it's a hell of a time to even be discussing such a controversial subject just months before the election. It's enough he has to say all the right things about domestic and foreign policy, but to have to tackle the ginormous subject of race might be problematic. He could spend 2 terms in office as President addressing racial issues, and still get nowhere. Perhaps if he ends up losing the election, he could devote more of his time addressing racial issues and injustices as he sees them. It seems like a lot to ask of a candidate to tackle the subject of race relations *and* run a conventional campaign at the same time.

I thought Huckabee's comments were out of left field for sure.

I think it is pretty clear that it wasn't his idea to address this issue but rather, between the Ferraro business and the focus on Rev. Wright over the past week, it was made an issue.

If he had said nothing it would have been suicide. Taking a stance on this issue was the right thing to do. I can't imagine either Hillary Clinton or John Kerry doing something like this... or rather I can but they wouldn't have carried it of with such aplomb.

That said, I agree. I don't think it really is the time and place for this discussion. There seem to be bigger fish to fry and I wish the media and the pundits would concentrate on those issues rather than this one.

Well since the 24hrs. news networks had the Rev. Wrights comments on a short loop, why would he need to go into detail on that? Wright's comments were well known, Obama's grandmother's comments were likely news to most people.

I believe you and you're welcome. I'm deliberately throwing cold water on my urge to turn this conversation into a knife fight. Let's keep doing that, both of us, okay?

My question is: where did you get the assertion that Wright was on Obama's political payroll? Because everything I'm seeing indicates the contrary--that Obama saw him at church, used him as a spiritual counselor, and obviously had a close relationship with him in that respect, but that he was never any formal member of the campaign and never was a political advisor. Obama explicitly said as much in the Tuesday speech--although lingering credibility issues may impede one's trust in that statement, of course.

Actually, I think if it was going to be ANYBODY from the Right, it'd be Huckabee. He no longer has a horse in the race, so he can say anything he wants to. Plus, he comes from a religious background, and I believe he's a good man with a good head on his shoulders (his wacky-ass tax plan notwithstanding). I disagree with his policy almost 100%, yet I find him very likable as a person. I was proud of him, to hear him say what he said about all this.

Your point about the bizarre outrage, though, is well taken.

Yeah, but given who he is, he almost can't NOT address race. And, you know, he might spend two terms in office addressing racial issues and get somewhere. Given the level he was talking at Tuesday morning, I think that's entirely possible.

Assuming you have your mind all made up...I don't think just an inclination one way or the other is enough to keep folks from being influenced by this. Of course, I might be giving the average American too much credit. I am usually cynical about that sort of thing but every once in a while I slip up. ;)

I say that because I was not for Obama before this and I am still not sure. I was for McCain 8 years ago and last summer I thought I would be for McCain if he won the nomination regardless of who the Dem's nominee was. Right now, I am still leaning that way however...

Obama won points with me on Tuesday. I wish he said some things more outright than he did but I am an adult and understand that you cannot have everything you want in this world.

Amazingly enough, the biggest thing keeping me out of his camp is the same thing others are flocking to him over...Iraq. While I was not in favor of the war there to start with (I really thought we needed to focus on Afghanistan) I am in favor of finishing what we started. It is our fault the country is destabilized and like it or not, we can't just walk away from a mess we literally created.

In view of the information about Huckabee that I have presented on this forum,
<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showpost.php?p=2365145&postcount=23">Link to my post....</a>, I cannot comprehend how you could "believe he's a good man with a good head on his shoulders", when, in all likelihood, Huckabee is as "whacked out" as the co-author of his book. George Grant.

IMO. Huckabee was probably potentially the most dangerous candidate in the presidential race. Visiting Israel nine times during his life, I posted on this forum, (<a href="http://www.tfproject.org/tfp/showthread.php?p=2383074&highlight=huckabee+israel#post2383074">link</a>) information supporting the premise that Huckabee's world view and foreign policy "vision", began and ended with Israel. He exhibited little or no knowledge about anything having to do with foreign policy, related to any other country or region. He is John Hagee in a politician's suit, IMO.

Consider that Huckabee decided to write a book with Grant, a guy who has said this:
Consider that the book authored by Grant that the quote above came from, was written well beofre Huckabee chose the man as his co-author:

At least read the whole post that I linked, and respond over there, to this, please?

if you like, seymour, you can look through this thread even and you'll see a pretty wide range of objections to the wright-tempest, very few of which could be understood as obama supporters rallying round their candidate.


there are alot of ways in which this "issue" is problematic--it's reliance on 30 second decontextualized video clips repeated ad nauseum on 24/7 infotainment channels demonstrates the extent to which anything, repeated enough times, can acquire a certain traction no matter how stupid, now matter how superficial. repetition is its own reward: repetition is power.

the way in which this decontextualized video clips repeated ad infinitum on 24/7 "news" television--the illusion that if you see the same 30 second clip enough times you understand fuck all about where that clip comes from, so repetition not only replaces context, but substitutes for context---this is of a piece with the shallower-than-shallow framing of wright as "racist"...the frames within which this claim even begin to make sense are deeply problematic: conservatives of the limbaugh stripe working the dynamics of the meme to the wholesale exclusion of social reality and its history, and the dynamics produced by the repetition of the meme itself.

so this idiotic affair acquired a sense of momentum through its being-packaged in easily repeatable form along with a steaming brown torrent of pseudo-analyses commensurate with that: 30 second arguments for 30 second attention spans.

these 30-second arguments resonate with a number of other problematic aspects of the populist conservative culture of victimization---conservatives are of course the victims, much in the way that early christians were--misunderstood, threatened, persecuted--"terrorists" or ILLEGALS or any number of other phantom enemies in the 30-second attention span substitute world of the televisual right---the righteous petit bourgeois is always beset with persecuting Others and now here is another.
if only all the persecuting others could be made to go away, everything would be right and ritgheous in the land. i know this because i hear it repeated again and again and again in tiny little arguments fit with arbitrary video clips repeated over and over in little pockets of infotainment that dot the 500 channel wasteland of television.

racism in the united states has a history and that history is central to the history of the united states and that history is in many many ways ugly and destructive and problematic and that history continues to shape and reshape the present and not all of this produces the Universal Assent reflected in the YAY AMERICA statements that the limbaugh-right would have you believe are the only acceptable forms of statements that can be made about this the best of all possible countries in the best of all possible economic orders in the best of all possible worlds. structural problems? what they fuck are they? cant talk about structure in a 30-second video clip repeated ad infinitum on the 24/7 infotainment channel of your choice.

it is easy to go on in this way--but personally i think the fact that huckabee---HUCKABEE--effectively called bullshit on this one should give even the most faithful television-oriented limbaugh-style conservative pause.


this line of objection to this "issue" has nothing to do with obama per se, and has been running throughout the thread.

Please don't misunderstand roachboy...I still consider this "issue" a real issue. While I can understand Wright's anger and I can support his right to that anger, I feel very deeply that has a community leader it is his responsibility to handle that anger better than he apparently has. The words of black ministers carry powerful impact in the community and preaching a divisive message such as he has (Obama admitted this outright so it is really above discussion at this point) is, IMHO, nothing short of irresponsible.

Just as I would consider it irresponsible coming from a white minister in a white Christian church, a white priest in a white Catholic church, a white Rabbi in a Jewish synagogue or a Muslim mulla in a mosque.

I was speaking more to Obama's handling of this issue. He had many options here and I think he did an excellent job overall in his track on how to deal with it. Are there gaps in how he handled it? Sure. But at this point there would be gaps in how anyone handled it and that is just a fact of life. When the rubber meets the road, we the people have no way to know for sure what is going on in any candidate's head and heart at this point. Some things must be taken on faith until such time as the candidate has proven with his or her final record what they truly believe.

I just think that anyone who did not consider Tuesday a darn good day for Obama and a pretty good day for American in general is so firmly rooted in their political beliefs so as to be completely closed. I think the true political center had to look at what was said and be moved positively by it and that is coming from a guy who has traditional been a centrist but right leaning centrist who has never voted for a Democrat for President.

roachboy, I began my own reply to SirSeymour, and then I changed my mind and decided to share some observations with you, instead.

I find myself becoming more isolated, because I go through a "what could they be thinking process", to try to determine what another person has to (should probably) deliberate about.....or something else....before they are able and motivated to post about who and/or what they support.

I just went through that kind of an exercise in trying to put together a response to SirSeymour, as I've done it, for example, in the circumstances of John McCain planning the life changes that pulled him out of the Navy into a new life in Arizona. circa 1981.

McCain at the time, was an Annapolis grad, career Navy officer, from a family line of Naval flag officers. He has plans to remarry and settle in a new state, the home turf of his bride to be. I try to put myself in his place, about to resign from the Navy, and I have a job offer from my new father in law to be, the 12th wealthiest man in Arizona. It's a big leap, new wife, new career; what's up with my fiancee's father, Jim Hensley. How did he become so wealthy and successful, I've only known a working life in the Navy, who is my new boss, what will it be like, working for him?

I ask around, about the man. I'm told he was convicted of a federal felony, related to his long term employment with the most prominent native Arizonan organized crime figure. I find that he worked for the guy along with his brother, also arrested, convicted, but sent to federal prison in the same case.

I'm told that he was arrested a second time a few years later, on similar work related charges, and that the charges against he and his brother were dropped, and soon after, they bought a New Mexico horse racing track together, along with an acquaintance who also worked for the same organized crime boss.

I'm told that my father-in-law to be's brother was convicted two more times on tax evasion charges, and served a total of the 3 stints in federal prison. I'm also told that the organized crime boss that the brothers worked for is reported to be the man who ordered the car bombing that murdered a prominent investigative reporter from the local newspaper, who had written "stuff" like I just described, about the Hensley brothers old boss.

I think about how I would react to all of that....would I still give up my Navy career and go to work as VP of PR at Hensley's beer distributorship, or would I marry his daughter, stay in the Navy, and look for other career opportunities.

Next, I think about how, if I were McCain, I would not go through a process of inquiry like I just described, before resigning from my Navy career and accepting the new job offer. I can't imagine that I wouldn't ask questions and check my father-in-law to be's background and reputation out...after all, there would be so much riding on working for him, and being newly married to his daughter, vs. marrying his daughter and keeping my current job.

Since I cannot imagine that McCain didn't go through a process of inquiry, I have to conclude that either he compromised his ethics by going from being a former POW and Naval officer from a Navy family, to working for Hensley and allowing him to be the principle financial backer of McCain's initial congressional and senate campaigns, or McCain was too incurious a person for me to imagine being president of the US.

Today, I try to put myself in SirSeymour's place, posting what he did about McCain and about not leaving Iraq in the state that it is in. I have no idea what "fixing Iraq", via "staying the course", keeping our military there for "50 or 100 years" as McCain recently talked about, means, or would look like.

I have no idea, given what I've posted about McCain on this forum over the last six weeks, what the process is that minimizes what I wrote about McCain's inquiry and decision making processees, above.

McCain looks to be promising policies that will make the transition from Bush, almost imperceptible.

I try to put myself in the place of those who buy the "hate minister" attack "Op". That's probably easiest one for me to examine. If they are filling page after page in support of it at townhall.com, and "blanketing" the airwaves of Salem Comm's 1600 station strong, talk and news radio network, I'm on the opposite side of whatever idea they're trying to sell.

Now, for Obama, or any of the candidates. If they've come out in support of increasing the size of the US military or the amount of military spending, I cannot support such a candidate. If they've come out in support of that, and they still talk about increasing spending on health care coverage or other domestic programs, I can't even listen seriously, because without cuts in military and in other intelligence/security related spending, there is no money to do anything discretionary.

I am sure others go through different exercises to decide what they support strongly enough to share with us here, but so, far, I am not able to put myself in their places and see how they get where they get, in forming their opinions.

I am trying to get used to feeling as isolated, politically speaking, as I know I am becoming. I would have to ignore or minimize more than I'm willing to, if I am to share in a fellowship with "likeminded" members who often post here.

http://jcnot4me.com/images/pot_calls_kettle_black.bmp

The hypocricy honestly made me laugh out loud... My boss is wondering why I'm not working now... Thanks

Isn't it funny - there was, at an earlier juncture, fear that Obama might secretly be a Muslim in some quarters.

Yet it his association with a Christian church that has gotten him into trouble.

host, that was one of the best replies you've ever written - so honest, so you. I at least understand where you're coming from, now, it not fully agreeing with you.

host---thanks for the post. very interesting stuff. i'll put up something in response later, when i've a bit of time to devote to it.

Sweet, right? It's easily one of my top 10 posts from TFPolitics, seriously.

Brilliantly executed, host.

First and foremost, the ignorance of judging a man by what someone else says is extreme to say the least. Senator Obama deserves better. Judging a Preacher man for a few snippets of his sermons run on a loop is ridiculous. And reducing this historical election into "hitman" politics as usual is insanity. Speaking as a Canadian whose ancestors moved north from Oklahoma and Texas to escape Jim Crow, I can honestly say I'm not even sure what all the fuss about the comments of the good Reverend is all about. Why all the shock and outrage??? To call him racist just exposes the idiocy of a line of thought shared by so many white americans. Is it so surprising that a man such as this who represents a HUGE segment of the black community might have some lingering anger/disgust/distrust for a country with so much potential that does so much damage. A country which allowed blacks to fight and die for it but still treated them as second class citizens. A country with ridiculous wealth and power but who doesn't care for all of her people. I'm beginning to think that it is the discomfort and uneasyness that these comments give rise to that causes so many to get all indignant. He said God would damn america for its misdeeds. That's preacher talk if I've ever heard it. Jesus and so many prophets before him said similar things about the ruling class in their time. He said America is run by rich white people. Ummmm...what's so untrue about that? Clearly most whites don't feel very priveleged these days but Barack adressed this masterfully. Rev. Wright apparently made claims that AIDS was introduced to wipe out the blacks. Would it be shocked if it were true? They gave the Indians Small Pox didn't they? And does anyone remember the Tuskegee Syphillis experiments?? Guess who the victims were in that one? He said that Crack Cocaine was brought in to the ghetto by the CIA. That's not a new allegation and it certainly wouldn't surprise me. http://www.finalcall.com/features/cia-dope.html
Maybe it's just cuz I'm black and my brethren were on the receiving end of so much of this. What about his comments about American foreign policy? Would you argue that the good ol US of A hasn't been up to some evil shenanigans worldwide for years?? What about Iran Contra? What about Chile or Haiti? What about giving Saddam those horrible WMD's to use in the first place? What about Nagasaki & Hiroshima? More recently what about trying to overthrow our good friend Chavez in Venezuela?? What about it? Wow. Solid track record. And yet...so much indignance and patriotism. Is it fair to judge the USA and it's people only on the evil that it has perpetrated on the world at large? To condemn the states for its oil/blood thirsty nature without looking at how much good they have done? How many people they've helped over the years? I don't think so. But why is it ok to do it to a man whose whole life has been the service of his country and his community? I can only speculate that its easier to throw stones than it is to look inward. You might not like what you see.

This bears repeating. Frankly, more preachers should be willing to step into the role of prophet. If a preacher isn't willing to condemn injustice - even within one's own country - then what are they good for? What's appalling isn't that Rev. Wright called many actions of the U.S., such as causing the loss of innocent life in Iraq, damnable. What's appalling is that there are so many preachers who don't.

I've been watching this thread, and the similar runs of discourse all across main-stream news outlets, for the past few days now...and honestly all I can say is "what the fuck?" I don't get it. I was looking at cnn.com earlier today...a story about a woman who was killed by an eagle, a little bit about the michigan/florida situation, something about a good recipe...and about 18 stories about the inflammatory remarks of Wright, and whether Obama can overcome his association, and whether this tanks his race...from my perspective, this is sad. I don't understand how people can be watching the first Presidential race involving a "Black" candidate...and be surprised that someone, somewhere, in his association has some militant commentary that has been captured on video. And recycled..ad nauseum. My experience is that if you get 10 educated black people together, at least one of them will have perspectives that are similar to those represented in the remarks of Wright. There is anger in the black community over the traditional treatment of black people in American society, and I find it disingenuous to expect that people are really shocked...SHOCKED!!!...that someone Obama is close to has these remarks. That it could possibly be a black minister from the South side of of Chicago! What are the odds? I think a lot of Americans, predominantly white Americans, were a lot more comfortable with Obama as a caricature of an anesthetized semi-black man...someone full of love and carefully hopeful messages of color-blind reconcilliation. Someone who would help them feel like our society was off the hook for our history of racial discrimination. I don't understand how people are surprised by this...I'd be more surprised if something like this didn't come out. It seems to me like people are just waking up to the fact that we have a black presidential candidate...and maybe...just MAYBE...race will be a factor....who'd a thunk it? Maybe the nasty issues of race and socio-economic status will come in play at some point...oh noes! Obama is a real person? With real personal and professional relationships...and they're not all cookie-cutter clean? Everyone he knows isn't dancing in the streets and holding hands singing Kumbaya? Holy shit - I personally am completely disillusioned. We're going to have to deal with real racial issues just because we have a black guy running for President? Fuck that! Pass the potato chips and turn American Idol back on...I heard the little 17 year old kid was going to be doing an awesome kareoke cover of an Elton John song this time to really shake it up! This whole thing stinks of political hitpiece...whether it be from a Clinton supporter, or a McCain supporter...

As to the comparisons to Haggee or Robertson, I think that's a simplified perspective as well. Yes, they are fuckwads. No, I don't want them having any more power over American politics than they already do. Do I think that parallels can be drawn between their statements and those of Wright? Sure. But I find their perspectives to be primarily ludicrous. Without historical perspective - at least in the calls to support Israel at any cost, and to take over American social landscapes with their fundamentalist interpretations of Christian theology. From what I've read, I can understand this guy's perspective. Racial discrimination of black Americans isn't that long in the past - in its more overt forms, and is easily argued as ongoing in present-day society. This Wright guy is skeptical? Where in the dickens did that come from?

I'm not particularly an Obama supporter, although at this point I'd prefer him over either Clinton or McCain. Watching people having their perspective of him dramatically changed by this makes me want him to win even more. I can't believe this is changing the poll numbers among Democrats. Coupled with the pre-fabricated fiasco with the delegates from Michigan and Florida...I can actually see this being the deciding factor in his run for the nomination...and I think that's sad.

The saddest part is what someone, { either Host or Pan? I can't remember which and I apologize}, a few pages back alluded to and that is we are facing many more important issues as a country and the one thing garnering the most attention is the great racial divide. Shouldn't we be talking about our housing and sub prime mortgage crisis? Shouldn't we be discussing the tremendous national debt that grows astronomically every single day? Or how about 4 dollar gas just around the corner that will further wreak further havoc on our already weak economy? Shouldn't we as a people be forciing the candidates to tell us something concrete instead of the generic "change" we all hear every 4 years? Both parties have used this to take attention away from what really ails this great country and that's the really truly sad part of this whole thing.

I just found something really interesting. I've been wondering what would happen if we had the full context that surround the "vicious racist anti-American" sound bytes we've heard on high-frequency loop on the news.

Here's a 10 minute clip of Wright's post-9/11 sermon, from which the "chickens come home to roost" quote is lifted. I urge you--no matter your "already" feelings on the matter--to take 10 minutes and watch this, and see if you don't come away with a different impression of the man. I certainly did.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/QOdlnzkeoyQ&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

You know...I already didn't think his comments were all that wrong. Tactless, maybe, but not wrong.

Now, I'm not even sure they were tactless, put in context.

Thanks for the video.

I've sent messages to CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News (I know, but it doesn't hurt to try) notifying them of this video and urging them to report on the full context of Rev. Wright's sermon.

I encourage everyone else to do the same. It's extremely rare for contextual developments or corrections to ever become nearly as widespread as original stories, so it will take a great deal of work to expose people to the proper context.

As a side note...knowing now that the "chickens coming home to roost" was a direct reference to Malcolm X, and considering the standard white opinion of Malcolm X (which entirely ignores the direction he began to move near the end of his life, much like we ignore the direction Martin Luther King, Jr. was going as well), I am increasingly suspicious that this was no less than an intentional, and racist, hit job.

I'm stumped as to why people find that video objectionable. Millions of Americans - black, white, latino, rich and poor, powerful and weak - have said the exact same things over the past several years.

Good luck with that. The infotainment industry isn't really interested in the whole story, i.e. news. They're interested in the most sensational story.

Exactly, personally I'm more offended when people like Robertson and Falwell blame hurricanes and natural disasters on gays, abortionist and "evil doers."

No doubt about that, but the reason they're interested in the most sensational story is because they're interested in ratings. Which is why the only way to get them to do something is to gather pressure. We can all sit around and say "they don't care" and not bother to tell them that we do, or, we can take 10 minutes and do something about it. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't, but at least we tried. And the more people you get to join you, the less meaningless your own efforts were.

True, I'll send messages off this morning. If nothing else maybe they'll do a 30 sec story about the context and run it on a half hourly bases.

If Fox puts this in any factual context I'll buy you a beverage of your choice... in the city of your choice. And yes, I'll pick up the cost of the beverage and the travel.

Hehehe, I couldn't let you do that...I'd be too worried about flying pigs hitting your plane!

smeth: this lay behind my emphasis on limbaugh as the source of this idiocy--the twisting of the malcolm x reference---which was, btw, the **first** thing that occurred to me as i heard about the attacks on the wtc on the morning of 11 september 2001.

Salem Comm. radio's 1600 stations distributed <a href="http://www.lauraingraham.com/">Laura Ingram's</a> "show" this AM...highlights were the broadcasting of Obama's speech snippet:

...and the stereo "typical white person" Message, belies the fact that this is a combined, conservative/GOP/christian evangelical, politcial "push back" against Obama's reconciliation and appeal for a dialogue, speech.

Ratbastid....who is it that Obama inspires you to think will be "unified"? There is no audience that is not already, reasonably unified in reasonableness, IMO.

....and SOuthern Baptist Theological Seminary's director,

Russell D. Moore, expressing his sympathy for "the Obama daughters", subjected to exposure to the church of Jeremiah Wright, EXACTLY the same as a white child being immersed in a white supremacist group.

I still think it would be best for Obama to switch his emphasis to discussion of the economy, and how to keep the coming hardship in the lap of the speculators who have triggered the coming depression...

,,,,Salem Comm's audience is the target of Obama's speech, it fell on deaf ears.

host---this is an interesting phase, ain't it?
the politics of distraction are everywhere.

i'm not sure if this is a topic for this or another thread, but since i am still working out how to fit the pieces together, and as a response to your post yesterday, i'll put it here for now.

a friend of mine made the argument the other day that the present financial crisis can be connected back to 3 main structural shifts--the deregulation of banking under reagan which resulted in the blurring of the line that traditionally separated investment banking from mortgage debt; the creation of an array of new financial instruments that function to move this debt around as an object of exchange; and neoliberalism as an enabling ideology--so that for example these instruments (which i am vague about because i do not yet really understand them--but i'm working on it) operate in quite opaque ways with consequences that are nor foreseeable and so constitute a huge increase in overall risk--which would not have been understood as a good idea for banks to take on were it not for neoliberalism, which enabled ideologues to argue that risk was not a big deal because markets are rational...that sort of thing.

while i'm still thinking about this, where it seems to lead to is that this crisis is an expression of structural problems engendered and enabled by the neoliberal regime itself and so is maybe a crisis of a much larger and more basic order than it is being presented--in other words, the subprime thing may be just an immediate trigger.

at one level, this is obvious--i-banks trafficking in mortgage debt means that the debt is now held transnationally, so the meaning of "local" economies is now obsolete--the political crises engendered by the bush people are playing out across a massive leaking away of american political power as it has pertained to economic activity, with the result that the american economy is rapidly becoming just an economic area amongst others caught up in the transnational flows of capital--the fluctuations of which are outside the control of any given nation-state--so by extension we are tipping into a crisis of the nation-state itself (maybe) or a surfacing of the underlying weakness of the outmoded notion/institutional reality of the nation-state.

this is a riff, but the pieces seem to fit.
there are holes in it, which are mostly a function of my still thinking through things and not knowing enough about--for example--the nature and role of these financial instruments--the put is an instance....

if this is anything like accurate, it is really unclear how the issue of the economy as it is now playing out can be coherently addressed in the context of a political campaign--it is not even clear how any of the candidates would address these questions once elected. because if this is a problem that affects the neoliberal regime itself and all the candidates are trafficking in versions of neoliberalism, how exactly are they to address a problem at that level?

to address it would seem to be sawing off the branch upon which they all sit.

there are specific conservative media networks--patterns of ownership and relay--they sit within broader patterns of ownership and ideological orientation--but it seems that there is a general ideological consent, a general delimitation of what the terms are that shape "legitimate" debate about economic questions, social questions, political questions--and that, if the above is at all correct, what may be unfolding is a problem for this entire ideological shell--and if that's true, the defunctionalization of the entire american ideological order may be among the largest chickens that is coming home to roost.

may you not live in interesting times....

Well, somebody's listening...

http://ac360.blogs.cnn.com/2008/03/2...ts-911-sermon/

Is the argument whether or not Wright is racist, or that race is being used against a black presidential candidate?

I think the answer to that question is both.

People need to stop being distracted and start talking about real issues. I have to hand it to foxnews and friends they sure are good at misdirection.

I'd be interested to know, powerclown, whether your opinion of "what Wright said" is changed any by seeing the whole thing in context.

Let's set the "God damn America" one aside for a second, because I haven't found that whole sermon yet--but I'm looking for it! Is your opinion of the evil racist anti-American
"chickens roost" statement changed at all by hearing it in context?

I lurk and listen and hopefully learn from you people..
I'll say one quick observation and then retreat.

The political structure of the USA, is so moth-eaten and fragile,
that the further blurring of the lines might do it a great service by
crumbling it more quickly in order for it to re-build.

The emperor, might need to fabricate his own clothing...
and heaven forbid if he can't balance on top of the pedestal
we've insisted he spin on.

I'm done..

I'm always amazed at people (right and left). Whenever a situation occurs which is important to some, but irrelevant to others, the other's always claim it's a distraction.

I have friends who are extremely against gay marriage, to me it's nothing but an irrelevant distraction. I have friends who want to raise the minimum wage, where to me it's irrelevant because I believe poverty is relative and won't end with an extra $.50/hr... so vote yes or no I don't care.

Personally, associating with people like Wright is an issue with me as it is with others here. For those of you who don't understand, you never will. Scream how it doesn't matter all you want, but it'll still matter to those of us whom it does.

Please don't take this the wrong way, because it's nothing against you, but sometimes I feel like the American south in its attitude toward its history of racial problems is a lot like Germany and its difficulty with its own Nazi history.

(yeah yeah, I know, Godwin's law, bear with me)

The Germans generally don't deal with their past head on. They're very apologetic about it, to be sure, but they also try to shove it away into a little box that they've locked and hidden in an ubersecret location. They go so far as to stifle speech and expression, making the nazi symbol illegal.

I often feel like the American south has a similar attitude toward racial issues. "Yes, we had slavery, we're sorry, let's move on." "How dare you, Mr. Black Man, acknowledge our history of oppression and, worse yet, be angry about it. It's in the past!"

Obama had a valid point when he described how white people feel resentment and feel like they're being punished for something they never did. It's something we need to face head on. And I think the inclination for the American south to want to pretend like everything is all better is in many ways related to this.

John Stuart Mill made a point in On Liberty (I'm sorry, I can't cite it specifically) that we need to allow even offensive viewpoints to be discussed. It is only by airing these things out in the open that we can learn - and continually remember - why they are bad. Germany is now having a bit of a resurgance of neo-Naziism. Stifling discussion of their Nazi history hasn't seemed to work out so well for them in terms of eradicating the sentiments that led to it.

What I see from many people - and not just in the American south, but it is certainly a common sentiment there - is an inclination to take Rev. Wright's statements and shove them away. Pretend they're fringe. Ignore them. They want Obama to denounce Rev. Wright and shove him into a fringe corner where we can happily move on from the comments and pretend they never happened and pretend they're meaningless and the rantings of some crazed lunatic who hates America. They want to move on as if these kinds of things aren't expressed all the time, in black congregations across America, and more importantly in black homes across America.

Obama's challenge to us in his "race speech" was that we should face that fact. Rev. Wright is not some fringe lunatic. Whether you like what he says or not, he is expressing a common sentiment. And, you know, he may not be entirely correct, but he's not entirely wrong either. And expecting Obama to denounce the person of Rev. Wright...a lot of white people, due to our own willful ignorance, don't realize just what kind of rejection that would involve. For Obama to hold Rev. Wright's views against Rev. Wright the man...he might as well withdraw his involvement with the urban black community. Because the only way Obama is not going to form close connections with people who may have some views like that which Obama may strongly disagree with is for him not to be involved in Chicago's south side black community at all.

To give you an idea how widespread this is, and how much Rev. Wright is not some anamoly: the first time I heard the theory that the U.S. government was behind HIV was as a kid in elementary school, in a relatively nice Chicago suburb. I'm walking home from school, and there's this man who is also walking down the street I'm going down - I don't remember what he looked like or where he came from, maybe he was even a school janitor or something, I don't know - and he proceeds to tell me about how the US government was behind AIDS in an attempt to wipe out black people. I wasn't inclined to believe him, but of course I was a white kid who grew up in a nice, safe suburb and went to a private Catholic school and I had probably just learned about how Columbus was an awesome guy who found America with no mention of the fact our American history started from the very beginning with treating the Native Americans like shit. If I had been a black kid, growing up on the south side of Chicago (or any number of other places), going to school in a place where we weren't given all the tools we needed to be successful, surrounded by gangs, feeling like joining the gang was my only choice because I was certainly not going to make it in a world where people don't care about me because I'm both black and poor, and having people look at me suspiciously whenever I'm walking down the street, I'm pretty sure I would have believed him.

People with views like Rev. Wright can't be tucked away into a corner and ignored. People who are going to be involved in communities like those on the south side of Chicago can't do so without befriending such people. And, it's a funny thing about being friends with someone, you often don't agree with them - sometimes very strongly even - but you're still friends with them. You still find ways to learn from them, and have that person enrich your life.

It is said that if we don't understand why Obama's association with Rev. Wright is a problem, then we never will. It can equally be said that if you don't understand what it's like to grow up as a black man in the south, or a black man on the south side of Chicago, and in poverty, then you never will. It can equally be said that if you don't understand what it takes and the kinds of people you come across when you're trying to make a difference in places like the south side of Chicago, then you never will. And, as Obama pointed out, it can also equally be said that if you don't understand what it's like to be a hard working white man who raises his kid to be a good student, only to be told that your kid didn't get into the college he wants because the spot was given to a different kid on the basis he was black, then you never will.

Let's stop trying to understand, and just start listening. Don't try to shove Rev. Wright off to the side and ignore his comments, don't expect Obama to do the same. What Obama has demonstrated, both in his association with Rev. Wright and in his speech, is that he is willing to associate and listen to everyone, in the interest of learning and growing. And he's not willing to shut someone out just because he doesn't like what they have to say.

That is the kind of man I want as my president.

Yes, like when he calls Geraldine Ferraro a typical white person. I hear racial generalizations ... perhaps that's common among typical black persons. I don't think either is typical. Obama is showing us his true self.

Very Presidential!

Uh...she is a typical white person. Either that, or I guess I've been imagining Ustwo and many other white people saying the same things she's been saying about Obama. Or, perhaps I've also been imagining all the white people I know who do think black people have it easy because of affirmative action, white guilt, etc.

Not to mention, stereotypes exist for a reason.

I think this is another point Obama was trying to get at. Instead of feigning outrage whenever someone directs an accurate stereotype toward someone, let's actually discuss where those stereotypes come from and in what ways they are true.

Guess what: black people are more likely to be criminals. Is it a stereotype? Sure. But it's also true. We should be talking about why. Likewise, white people do often think like Geraldine Ferraro. Instead of just dismissing it and screaming "stereotype!" we should address the reasons why and open a dialogue about it.

Please define "typical white person" as you believe Barak Obama was referring to Geraldine Ferraro.

He did.

Here you go--Here's the several minutes around "God damn America". Hearing the whole thing changes the meaning and content of the statement ENTIRELY. It's clearly a political position, but when you hear what he's talking about, it's suddenly completely understandable. He's rabidly PRO-American, while STRONGLY criticizing the American government. BIG difference.

<object width="425" height="355"><param name="movie" value="http://www.youtube.com/v/RvMbeVQj6Lw&hl=en"></param><param name="wmode" value="transparent"></param><embed src="http://www.youtube.com/v/RvMbeVQj6Lw&hl=en" type="application/x-shockwave-flash" wmode="transparent" width="425" height="355"></embed></object>

Understandably vague avoidance response.
So in your own words, please define "typical white person" as you believe Barak Obama was referring to Geraldine Ferraro.

For the record, I'm a typical white person.

Edit: to clarify, I am white, and fairly typical. I also believe that Barak being half African-American is important, though I'm not sure what effect it's had on the success of his campaign (I'm hoping positive).

I already answered this before you even asked. She has stated that Barack Obama is where he is because he's black. The typical white person does believe this (which is beyond the question of how true it is). There are plenty here who have said such things, and I know of plenty in real life.

For the record I'm anything but typical.